Murdering people for whatever reason is bad enough, but murdering people for what they think, believe, write or draw is particularly odious.
Vive la Liberté!
I thought about posting about this myself. My daughter is a young journalist, so this has a particular resonance for me. So sad about this. I guess that massacres happen in Iraq and Syria all the time but they do not get so much coverage in the West. Maybe, from a British point of view, it is because France is close to us so we relate more to Europeans. I have had a number of interesting conversations with my work colleagues about this today. It is like a massacre at the offices of the British satirical magazine 'Private Eye' which I read on a regular basis.
Quote from: vandermolen on January 07, 2015, 12:28:55 PM
I guess that massacres happen in Iraq and Syria all the time but they do not get so much coverage in the West.
That is true, unfortunately. The Western media are outraged (rightly so, of course) when several of them are killed, but they don´t make much of a fuss about hundreds being killed who are not Americans or Europeans. For instance, tens of thousands of Christians in Iraq and Pakistan live under constant threat of being killed or chased away from their homes (both instances amply documented) because of their religion, yet no noticeable cry of protest has been heard, nor any noticeable number of people taking to the streets have been seen, in the Western world.
Yet this is not less of an incentive to take a stand against fanaticism and bigotry wherever they might manifest themselves. On the contrary. In matters political and social the journalists of
Charlie Hebdo probably stood in almost complete opposition to what I stand for --- but that ¨almost¨ covers the single most important thing they and I had in common: committment to freedom of speech in particular, and to freedom in general.
May God forgive their trespasses and comfort their families!
Quote from: Florestan on January 07, 2015, 01:02:13 PM
That is true, unfortunately. The Western media are outraged (rightly so, of course) when several of them are killed, but they don´t make much of a fuss about hundreds being killed who are not Americans or Europeans. For instance, tens of thousands of Christians in Iraq and Pakistan live under constant threat of being killed or chased away from their homes (both instances amply documented) because of their religion, yet no noticeable cry of protest has been heard, nor any noticeable number of people taking to the streets have been seen, in the Western world.
Yet this is not less of an incentive to take a stand against fanaticism and bigotry wherever they might manifest themselves. On the contrary. In matters political and social the journalists of Charlie Hebdo probably stood in almost complete opposition to what I stand for --- but that ¨almost¨ covers the single most important thing they and I had in common: committment to freedom of speech in particular, and to freedom in general.
May God forgive their trespasses and comfort their families!
Actually, it always seems to me that this is all they report - all the tragedies in those parts of the world. It is depressing.
Your messages go right to my heart. Since I heard of it shortly after the events, this has been a very gloomy, sad day. This has been a tragic, appalling, revolting moment in the life of democracy in France. There have been shocking attacks, those of Toulouse in 2012, the series of bomb attacks in 1995... You can't compare such horrifying events but the attack against Charlie Hebdo is catastrophic.
I have read and loved this journal since I was a teenager. It is a unique piece of journalism, nothing compares to it. The harshest satirical pictures, sometimes very (sexually for instance) graphic, are placed next to book reviews, to articles on economy, on movies... This might sound like the New Yorker, but it has nothing of its elegant, formal attitude. Charlie Hebdo is scandalous, it wants to be scandalous. It is the incarnation of freedom of expression because it always decided to test its limits to the extreme. Which is why when these men and women were attacked, they were in everyone else's place.
Among the dead were two monuments of French political cartoon : Cabu and Wolinski, who, along with the "Professeur" Choron, Cavanna, Gébé, Topor, Reiser and a few others, created first Hara Kiri in 1961 and, after the journal was twice banned by the authorities, Charlie Hebdo in 1969. It was the incarnation of all the ideas that were arising in the aftermath of the 1968 uprisings... All those guys, I don't think two of them could have agreed with each other on any political or religious matter, but they resolved that by creating this journal, where you could read, week after week, all kinds of different ideas. The only constant targets were religious extremists, the far right, and the financial-capitalitic milieu. But Charlie's only weapons were hilarious cartoons and clever ideas.
Charb was the current managing editor, and also author of numerous provocative cartoons. Riss, also dead today, was another talented artist from this newer generation, of approximately the same age than the journal itself.
Bernard Maris is another well known name among the victims. He was one of the economists I admire the most, a respected professor and author and, at the same time, one of the joint owners of Charlie Hebdo, publishing every week a column as "Oncle Bernard". He was probably one of the most humane economists I've heard, always putting men and women at the center of his thinking. The level of the economic debate is very low in the French media, sadly he was frequently the only non-classical economist invited, but also the only real economist (with a PhD in economy, when most other people debating economy on French TV are just journalists pretending they know anything about economy).
This is a tragic and shocking event, and, also, a very, very sad day for all those who simply love this journal and admire those who make it.
Cabu (1938-2014)
(http://p3.storage.canalblog.com/38/76/398124/21919231.jpg)
[Sarkozy:] "Our pockets are empty"
Wolinski (1934-2014)
(http://jeanclaudeharry.elunet.fr/public/jeanclaudeharry.elunet.fr/.CCF16072012_00001_m.jpg)
"Our daughter, engaged with a jewish, one-eyed, lame nigger !
- Jesus! Mary!
- Darling, be kind, don't tell them right now that you're a communist..."
Charb (1967-2014)
(http://www.voxeurop.eu/files/Charb-12162011.jpg)
"But WHO really wants the British in the EU?"
Tignous (1957-2014)
(http://www.marianne.net/photo/art/default/942587-1118941.jpg?v=1391520176)
"Marine Le Pen has de-demonized the Front National
- Hello kids!"
Bernard Maris (1946-2014)
(http://www.babelio.com/users/AVT_Bernard-Maris_1833.jpeg)
"Ce que nous croyions être la mondialisation heureuse n'était que la démesure de l'argent fou et de sa pulsion destructrice."
"What we believed would be a happy globalization was nothing but the hubris of the money madness and its destructive impulse."
Some of their recent front pages :
(http://www.jeanmarcmorandini.com/sites/jeanmarcmorandini.com/files/corps/01-1127.jpg)
"Valérie Trierweiler feels better"
(http://s.tf1.fr/mmdia/i/97/8/les-dessins-satiriques-du-dessinateur-et-directeur-de-charlie-10591978fiosy_1713.jpg)
"DSK: a conspiracy
- I am paid by the UMP [Sarkozy's party]"
(http://p3.storage.canalblog.com/31/97/177230/86438366_o.jpg)
"Hollande, make us cum
- I'm gonna crack your ass"
[The viagra-like pill reads "austerity"]
Discobolus,
Very moving post. Thank you.
And bad news seem not to end... Among the victims is also Honoré, who had a really unique style, and whose cartoons and portraits were usually associated with Oncle Bernard's columns...
Honoré (1941-2014)
(http://www.iconovox.com/base/images/honore-0009-0028-m.jpg)
"War on the poor.
- Begging, wandering, mocking cops, sitting in stairwells...
- We're good for prison!"
It is a very sad day - as a student I loved Harakiri ( the magazine from which Charlie hebdo originated). Wolinski (now brutally murdered) and (somewhat later) especially Reiser made me laugh by being so outrageously "bête et mèchant" .
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oIi_AJTCfd0/UBKWzT96-5I/AAAAAAAAyDs/7g4Z8KaVP60/s640/1005119_wolinski.jpg)
(http://static.fnac-static.com/multimedia/images_produits/ZoomPE/2/1/1/9782226143112.jpg)
But yes...: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/07/55m-people-displaced-over-first-half-of-2014-says-un-refugee-agency
What a sad, depressing day.
Quote from: Florestan on January 07, 2015, 11:52:14 AM
Murdering people for whatever reason is bad enough, but murdering people for what they think, believe, write or draw is particularly odious.
Vive la Liberté!
Amen!
Quote from: vandermolen on January 07, 2015, 12:28:55 PM
I thought about posting about this myself. My daughter is a young journalist, so this has a particular resonance for me. So sad about this. I guess that massacres happen in Iraq and Syria all the time but they do not get so much coverage in the West. Maybe, from a British point of view, it is because France is close to us so we relate more to Europeans. I have had a number of interesting conversations with my work colleagues about this today. It is like a massacre at the offices of the British satirical magazine 'Private Eye' which I read on a regular basis.
Amen again!
Freedom of Thought/Freedom of Religion/Freedom of Speech/etc. eventually became part of the Western Tradition and of Christianity, but only after a great and at times violent struggle.
I am reminded of some famous predictions from the 1990's c. 20 years ago:
Francis Fukuyama and his claim of
The End of History come to mind at such times. With the collapse of Communism in Europe (but only partially in China), he foresaw the triumph of "liberal democracies" and general peace and prosperity. The only problems would be small brushfires and the rise of Nietzschean "last men," i.e. a society of general mediocrity and timorousness because of the lack of life-or-death challenges.
Benjamin Barber in
Jihad vs. McWorld was much more pessimistic, foreseeing what we are now experiencing, jihad, and "McWorld" i.e. the rise of crony capitalist governments, where international corporations buy politicians to benefit their interests. Neither trend is interested in democracy, or protecting basic rights.
Samuel Huntington in
The Clash of Civilizations foresaw "the West versus the rest" with the latter being those civilizations not sharing the positive developments of the Reformation, Renaissance, and Enlightenment.
Anthony Blankley followed
Huntington with
The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? in which he criticized cowardly politicians for not protecting our basic freedoms, and willing to give them away in a show of "tolerance" or as a way to prevent violence.
It is disconcerting to see where these predictions were correct, and heartening to see where they were wrong. In general, I am optimistic that things will improve, but history does show that sometimes they do become worse.
Charlie Hebdo was not bombed for mocking Brits, or the UMP, or crony capitalists. Not for mocking DSK or French antisemites. They were bombed for mocking Islam and Mohammed. For blaspheming. And they will achieve their aims if we do not forthrightly defend and assert the right to do just that.
My avatar is a 14th century Persian picture of Mohammed.
Vox has a series of covers with comments. Kudos.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507883/charlie-hebdo-explained-covers (http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507883/charlie-hebdo-explained-covers)
"Je ne suis pas Charlie." http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/07/catholic-league-president-bill-donohue-o (http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/07/catholic-league-president-bill-donohue-o)
Just the first of a flood of mitigations, excuses, and weaseling we will see from religious leaders I predict.
Some cartoons published today in the wake if the massacre
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/heartbreaking-cartoons-from-artists-in-response-to-the-ch?s=mobile
This reminds me of an argument I had last year with a colleague after I brought up the subject of "Charlie Hebdo" and the Muhammad cartoons. Her opinion was that the cartoons shouldn't have been allowed out of respect for religion. I couldn't believe her advocacy of censorship and the implication that the fanatics were right to be offended. I don't know what she might think today, but I feel very bad.
Quote from: Abuelo Igor on January 08, 2015, 08:19:33 AM
This reminds me of an argument I had last year with a colleague after I brought up the subject of "Charlie Hebdo" and the Muhammad cartoons. Her opinion was that the cartoons shouldn't have been allowed out of respect for religion. I couldn't believe her advocacy of censorship and the implication that the fanatics were right to be offended. I don't know what she might think today, but I feel very bad.
Bad how? You don't mean that you think she was right after all?
surely a mussaad/see-aye-yay job
you WILL notice in the vid of the cop on the group that the "head shot" hits the pavement a few feet from cop's head, dust coming up from the pavement where the bullet hit. Whatever else happened, the cop was NOT shot in the head--- it looks like the perp purposely shots beyond the cop's head. LOOK FOR YOURSELVES
WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GET ANDREW PAEDO OFF THE FRONT PAGE???? TERRRRRRORRRROISMO!!!!!!!!!!
Show me the bodies. Sorry, I don't believe the media just because they say something. I NEED to see the "proof" Just like those "beheading" vids fade to black right as the expensive special effects were about to take place.
The muzzies are being fed to you as the Emanuel Goldstein of this era.
Where oh where did these poor youths get all that fancy firepower??? Weren't the "losers"??? Just asking where they got that fancy fancy firepower....
So, there has NEVER been a staged event to make the populace think a certain way?
Netanyahu Nov. 2014: "France will be sorry it want a palestinian state."
Epstein,... Prince Andrew,... underage girls,... WHOOPS!!!_ here come the muzzie terrors--- nothing to see, move along
ISLAM IS A JEWISH FRONT GROUP.
Quote from: Ken B on January 08, 2015, 08:29:48 AM
Bad how? You don't mean that you think she was right after all?
I feel bad that a group of people that stand for a lot of things I hold dear have been brutally killed, and I feel bad that there are people out there, like my colleague, who, adding insult to injury, will even say that "they brought it on themselves". With such attitudes, we might as well give up and offer our arms to be chained.
I stand with Voltaire on this: I may not like or agree with much that Charlie Hebdo said or the way they drew it, but I will defend to my last breath their right to draw and say it. Yesterday's attack was indeed terrible and reprehensible, but as the world's cartoonists drew, from this one attack will be born innumerable more satirical cartoonists.
And, on cue, a defence
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/)
Quote from: Ken B on January 08, 2015, 09:04:30 AM
And, on cue, a defence
From the article by a "radical Muslim cleric":
"Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires"
Then they should not be living in countries where freedom of expression is considered one of the most important values.
Terrible event, and I worry about the subsequent political and social fall-out from it even more than the massacre itself.
Satiric genius.
Thomas de Maizère was unavailable for comment. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/saudi-arabia-activist-raif-badawis-1000-lashes-public-flogging-commence-after-friday-prayers-1482540 (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/saudi-arabia-activist-raif-badawis-1000-lashes-public-flogging-commence-after-friday-prayers-1482540)
The reaction in the Chinese public domain is overwhelmingly in support of Je Suis Charlie. You know how the people here like to take an opportunity to seemingly talking about some events outside when they are really expressing their feelings about things domestic. ;)
Quote from: jochanaan on January 08, 2015, 08:56:57 AM
I stand with Voltaire on this: I may not like or agree with much that Charlie Hebdo said or the way they drew it, but I will defend to my last breath their right to draw and say it. [....]
This.
Quoted Voltaire at the office today, without 'inserting' Charlie Hebdo btw. ;)
Probably because, in general, I like satire.
I will keep faith in my belief in democracy and in our culture of free speech, and I hope that the (French) police will catch those losers alive.
Quote from: Cato on January 07, 2015, 02:10:12 PM
Amen!
Amen again!
Freedom of Thought/Freedom of Religion/Freedom of Speech/etc. eventually became part of the Western Tradition and of Christianity, but only after a great and at times violent struggle.
I am reminded of some famous predictions from the 1990's c. 20 years ago:
Francis Fukuyama and his claim of The End of History come to mind at such times. With the collapse of Communism in Europe (but only partially in China), he foresaw the triumph of "liberal democracies" and general peace and prosperity. The only problems would be small brushfires and the rise of Nietzschean "last men," i.e. a society of general mediocrity and timorousness because of the lack of life-or-death challenges.
Benjamin Barber in Jihad vs. McWorld was much more pessimistic, foreseeing what we are now experiencing, jihad, and "McWorld" i.e. the rise of crony capitalist governments, where international corporations buy politicians to benefit their interests. Neither trend is interested in democracy, or protecting basic rights.
Samuel Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations foresaw "the West versus the rest" with the latter being those civilizations not sharing the positive developments of the Reformation, Renaissance, and Enlightenment.
Anthony Blankley followed Huntington with The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? in which he criticized cowardly politicians for not protecting our basic freedoms, and willing to give them away in a show of "tolerance" or as a way to prevent violence.
It is disconcerting to see where these predictions were correct, and heartening to see where they were wrong. In general, I am optimistic that things will improve, but history does show that sometimes they do become worse.
How interesting. Well said Leo.
Quote from: Marc on January 08, 2015, 10:32:25 AM
I will keep faith in my belief in democracy and in our culture of free speech, and I hope that the (French) police will catch those losers alive.
And put them in a jail where the only food on the menu is pork.
Quote from: The new erato on January 08, 2015, 11:15:34 AM
And put them in a jail where the only food on the menu is pork.
(http://112.imagebam.com/download/WXgMCjcCAjanDaF0yS5L_g/38008/380079797/z1a.jpg)
SATIRE!
(http://s4.postimg.org/jnb1j97h9/z2a.jpg)
Quote from: Marc on January 08, 2015, 11:34:49 AM
(http://s4.postimg.org/jnb1j97h9/z2a.jpg)
:laugh: (hard to believe I'm laughing in this thread).
I think Charb and his gang would have wanted a good laugh. Long live Charlie Hebdo !
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on January 08, 2015, 09:16:22 AM
From the article by a "radical Muslim cleric":
"Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires"
Then they should not be living in countries where freedom of expression is considered one of the most important values.
Well, another concept they do not believe in is that of a country which is outside Islam´s dominion in any other way than temporarily. ;D
After the horrific massacre Wednesday at the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, perhaps the West will finally put away its legion of useless tropes trying to deny the relationship between violence and radical Islam.
This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman. This was not an "un-Islamic" attack by a bunch of thugs--the perpetrators could be heard shouting that they were avenging the Prophet Muhammad. Nor was it spontaneous. It was planned to inflict maximum damage, during a staff meeting, with automatic weapons and a getaway plan. It was designed to sow terror, and in that it has worked.
The West is duly terrified. But it should not be surprised.
[...]
How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today's Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.
This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.
What do we get in return? Kalashnikovs in the heart of Paris. The more we oblige, the more we self-censor, the more we appease, the bolder the enemy gets.
[...] (http://aina.org/news/20150108000006.htm)
(emphasis mine)
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on January 08, 2015, 09:16:22 AM
From the article by a "radical Muslim cleric":
"Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires"
Hence the 'radical'.
Quote from: Rinaldo on January 09, 2015, 03:25:21 AM
Hence the 'radical'.
'Radical' is a word applied by the western journalist who wrote the piece. It is is not an objective fact.
There's a war going on in Paris.
:(
The religious white-washing continues apace. http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/08/new-york-times-reports-on-muslim-proselytizing-during-charlie-hebdo-attack-then-deletes-it/ (http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/08/new-york-times-reports-on-muslim-proselytizing-during-charlie-hebdo-attack-then-deletes-it/)
The academic blame-shifting continues apace http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/07/college-professor-paper-attacked-by-islamists-was-devoted-to-hate-speech/ (http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/07/college-professor-paper-attacked-by-islamists-was-devoted-to-hate-speech/)
Quote from: Marc on January 09, 2015, 05:22:50 AM
There's a war going on in Paris.
:(
There's a battle going on in Paris. The war is world-wide.
Yes, and this battle is against extremism and obscurantism.
I have read everywhere the famous sentence attributed to Voltaire, "I will defend to my last breath, etc., etc." He never wrote or said that, but it's close enough to his thought, that's true. Voltaire also had a habit to say or sign : "Écrasons l'infâme" or just "Ecrelinf". Let's crush infamy. Infamy being the exact same thing that Charlie fight every week.
I have read and heard so many lies and attempts to distort Charlie Hebdo's usual views on many matters, since the event, that I can only note that this is not a war, and not a battle. These events are a defeat, plain and simple.
Many so-called "supporters" today should only be ashamed to be heard speaking about a journal they openly bashed previously. Charlie had been publically and wrongfully condemned in the last years by hundreds of liers and hypocrits, including the French government, Barack Obama, the pope... Really, they needed Charb and the others to be dead, before expressing any sympathy at all.
Thankfully, there's a new Charlie coming in 5 days. I've heard Luz has already drawn the cover on his hospital bed. We'll see after this new issue how many of these hypocritical supporters from all directions will back off again, and try to make new excuses.
My new avatar is from of my favourite covers by Charlie in recent years, drawn by Cabu.
(http://frontdesnoncroyants.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/aux-chiottes1.jpg)
"Let's throw all religions into the crapper."
The 3 rolls of toilet paper are the Bible, the Coran and the Torah.
All terrorists now reported dead in both police assaults. Again, nothing else than a defeat. All the actions of these 3 tragic days will never be judged.
Quote from: Discobolus on January 09, 2015, 06:51:19 AM
My new avatar is from of my favourite covers by Charlie in recent years, drawn by Cabu.
(http://frontdesnoncroyants.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/aux-chiottes1.jpg)
"Let's throw all religions into the crapper."
The 3 rolls of toilet paper are the Bible, the Coran and the Torah.
C'est tres bien!
A friend who lived in Paris 30 years wrote me a great note on Charlie. He called it "all that's best about France": willing to skewer anyone, resolutely secular, fearless.
Quote from: Ken B on January 09, 2015, 05:28:12 AM
There's a battle going on in Paris. The war is world-wide.
Well, good luck with this war, then.
It's not mine.
Quote from: Discobolus on January 09, 2015, 06:51:19 AM
My new avatar is from of my favourite covers by Charlie in recent years, drawn by Cabu.
(http://frontdesnoncroyants.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/aux-chiottes1.jpg)
"Let's throw all religions into the crapper."
The 3 rolls of toilet paper are the Bible, the Coran and the Torah.
Gods and religions are created by mankind.
"Let's throw all men (and women! All right Stan: AND WOMEN) into the crapper."
(Satire.)
Anyway, I'm leaving this thread with:
(http://112.imagebam.com/download/pOJIuamHcu1S3tEYvsfbNQ/38026/380254948/ch1.jpg)
Quote from: Marc on January 09, 2015, 07:52:45 AM
Well, good luck with this war, then.
It's not mine.
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
Quote from: Ken B on January 09, 2015, 08:05:56 AM
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
(Hm, you 'forced' me to react. ;))"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
A. Nonsense.
B. Bad translation of something Trotsky is said to have said. It's dialectic, not war, that's interested in you/me.
Quote from: Marc on January 09, 2015, 08:18:56 AM
(Hm, you 'forced' me to react. ;))
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
A. Nonsense.
Tell that to those killed in the Paris market today, or the night club in Bali, or the buses in London, or ...
Quote from: Ken B on January 09, 2015, 08:30:28 AM
Tell that to those killed in the Paris market today, or the night club in Bali, or the buses in London, or ...
Again: good luck with this war then.
We have seen the great results of Bush's war on terror during the last dozen years or so.
Man, did we make the worldwide victims of terrorism happy with that.
War, that's what these extremists want.
Let's give it to them, shall we?
And let's take the satiric drawings of Charlie literally, just like those islam fanatics.
(Maybe you should reconsider your signature.)
Right now I'm watching French imam Hassan Chalgoumi on the telly.
He's a muslim and reads the Koran in a different way, like many other imams and muslims, and he's preaching that in his mosque.
"We have to preach against the fundamental interpretation of the Islam, because it's a lie".
In this thread, I miss the distinction between fanatic and radical Muslims and muslims in general.
We should try to reach out to the frustrated islamic youth in the western world (like the suburbs of large cities like Paris), together with those imams, and show them that a holy war isn't the answer to their problems and offer them civilized alternatives. That's what makes 'our' culture strong.
I won't give up believing in this strength of our world of freedom and tolerance.
Let's leave the war to the barbarians.
But hey, as I wrote earlier, war isn't interested in me, so this must be nothing but sissy blabbering.
Hmmm...Is the honor of the Prophet such a weak thing, that Muslims must kill to defend it? As a Christian, I am naturally upset whenever the name of Jesus is dishonored (especially by those who take His Name for themselves!), but I believe that He will defend His own honor, eventually if not immediately, without any help from me.
Quote from: Marc on January 09, 2015, 08:48:10 AM
In this thread, I miss the distinction between fanatic and radical Muslims and muslims in general.
In fact, many of them seem like poor losers only adapting an Islamic image to get an excuse to get back at society. Our own Norwegian terrorist, ABB, certainly fit into that mold, but had to invent his own ideology to justify his revenge on society.
Quote from: jochanaan on January 09, 2015, 08:49:09 AM
Hmmm...Is the honor of the Prophet such a weak thing, that Muslims must kill to defend it? As a Christian, I am naturally upset whenever the name of Jesus is dishonored (especially by those who take His Name for themselves!), but I believe that He will defend His own honor, eventually if not immediately, without any help from me.
This.
And:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.(I don't believe in Jesus btw. (Sorry for that.) But I respect him a.o. for this quote.)
Quote from: The new erato on January 09, 2015, 08:54:37 AM
In fact, many of them seem like poor losers only adapting an Islamic image to get an excuse to get back at society. Our own Norwegian terrorist, ABB, certainly fit into that mold, but had to invent his own ideology to justify his revenge on society.
Well, some of the true warriors who truly believe that Islam is nothing but terror and war (unlike many other ideologies?), have written the imprisoned ABB letters of respect. Now that's civilization.
Quote from: Marc on January 09, 2015, 08:48:10 AM
Again: good luck with this war then.
We have seen the great results of Bush's war on terror during the last dozen years or so.
Man, did we make the worldwide victims of terrorism happy with that.
War, that's what these extremists want.
Let's give it to them, shall we?
And let's take the satiric drawings of Charlie literally, just like those islam fanatics.
(Maybe you should reconsider your signature.)
Right now I'm watching French imam Hassan Chalgoumi on the telly.
He's a muslim and reads the Koran in a different way, like many other imams and muslims, and he's preaching that in his mosque.
"We have to preach against the fundamental interpretation of the Islam, because it's a lie".
In this thread, I miss the distinction between fanatic and radical Muslims and muslims in general.
We should try to reach out to the frustrated islamic youth in the western world (like the suburbs of large cities like Paris), together with those imams, and show them that a holy war isn't the answer to their problems and offer them civilized alternatives. That's what makes 'our' culture strong.
I won't give up believing in this strength of our world of freedom and tolerance.
Let's leave the war to the barbarians.
But hey, as I wrote earlier, war isn't interested in me, so this must be nothing but sissy blabbering.
Wow. What a spectacular display of misreading a comment. Let me spell it out. One commenter remarked there was a war going on in Paris this moment. That's a metaphor. I pointed out that Paris isn't an isolated example. I re-used the metaphor to do so. The war is fought by Salafist-style muslim fundamentalists against the rest of Islam and the west, and decency in general. It is being fought by ISIS against Iraqis and the Taliban against school-girls as well as against Charlie Hebdo.
And no, I won't rethink my signature. Allowing the extremists easy victories over the west builds their prestige and their power.
OK Marc, I confess I am curious. Which part of my signature do you disapprove of?
Is it "Je suis Charlie?"
Is it where I link to Islamic drawings to make the point that the extremist interpretation of the Koran is not the only one, and that Islamic history supports other less belicose readings?
Is it the South Park clip?
Quote from: Ken B on January 09, 2015, 09:21:03 AM
OK Marc, I confess I am curious. Which part of my signature do you disapprove of?
Is it "Je suis Charlie?"
Is it where I link to Islamic drawings to make the point that the extremist interpretation of the Koran is not the only one, and that Islamic history supports other less belicose readings?
Is it the South Park clip?
It was the "Charlie" part.
I believe that Charlie disagreed with the "there's a war going on". Therefore they answer(ed) with mocking and satiric drawings to those extremist losers who want everyone to believe that there really is a war: there's not a war going on, you are all screwed up.
I don't believe there's really a world wide war between the 'west' and the 'Islam', either.
I do believe that this is made up by people who feel better when they're in a war situation. No matter if they're non-believers, communists, democrats, republicans, Christians, Muslims, Hindu or whatever.
I don't believe that Islam is the problem. It could have been the other way around in a different situation. It's just about people who are abusing a certain ideology to explain away frustration and violence.
IMO, their easiest victory would be agreeing there really is a war.
But yes, this all might well be a minor issue, because now I read your comment I think that your suggestion of misunderstanding between us (starting with the war-metaphor-thing) is probably right.
So I apologize for that.
I just had a feeling that, because of your enlargement of my metaphorical comment, you were taking a different position.
OTOH, we do take different positions if it's about "the war is interested in you" matter.
And I don't think that we help the victims of terrorism to make the entire world a place of war between ideologies who intrinsically are the same for about 90%. (I do not have scientific proof for this percentage, though. ;))
I prefer the way of trying to find the cause of hate and from there on try to 'make sense' with the self-appointed enemy.
And I also think that I myself, being a laborious non-native (English/American) speaker/reader with not that much interest to discuss about politics/war/ideologies/et cetera, should stay clear from The Diner, except for the pop music and film threads. I've told myself this many times before but apparantly sometimes it's too difficult to stay away. I just felt very bad and emotional the last few days because of the Paris terror (being Dutch, it reminded me of the murder of Theo van Gogh in 2004), and I wanted to support Charlie to honour their satiric qualities. But before I know it, I'm into a discussion that I never pursued.
So, there's less war going on between us as it seemed at first, and, even if there was a 'true war in words' going on in which we really disagreed firmly, then I probably would have ended it with: even though I despise your point of view, I will support your right to express it.
Quote from: Marc on January 09, 2015, 10:35:06 AM
It was the "Charlie" part.
I believe that Charlie disagreed with the "there's a war going on". Therefore they answer(ed) with mocking and satiric drawings to those extremist losers who want everyone to believe that there really is a war: there's not a war going on, you are all screwed up.
I don't believe there's really a world wide war between the 'west' and the 'Islam', either.
I do believe that this is made up by people who feel better when they're in a war situation. No matter if they're non-believers, communists, democrats, republicans, Christians, Muslims, Hindu or whatever.
I don't believe that Islam is the problem. It could have been the other way around in a different situation. It's just about people who are abusing a certain ideology to explain away frustration and violence.
IMO, their easiest victory would be agreeing there really is a war.
But yes, this all might well be a minor issue, because now I read your comment I think that your suggestion of misunderstanding between us (starting with the war-metaphor-thing) is probably right.
So I apologize for that.
I just had a feeling that, because of your enlargement of my metaphorical comment, you were taking a different position.
OTOH, we do take different positions if it's about "the war is interested in you" matter.
And I don't think that we help the victims of terrorism to make the entire world a place of war between ideologies who intrinsically are the same for about 90%. (I do not have scientific proof for this percentage, though. ;))
I prefer the way of trying to find the cause of hate and from there on try to 'make sense' with the self-appointed enemy.
And I also think that I myself, being a laborious non-native (English/American) speaker/reader with not that much interest to discuss about politics/war/ideologies/et cetera, should stay clear from The Diner, except for the pop music and film threads. I've told myself this many times before but apparantly sometimes it's too difficult to stay away. I just felt very bad and emotional the last few days because of the Paris terror (being Dutch, it reminded me of the murder of Theo van Gogh in 2004), and I wanted to support Charlie to honour their satiric qualities. But before I know it, I'm into a discussion that I never pursued.
So, there's less war going on between us as it seemed at first, and, even if there was a 'true war in words' going on in which we really disagreed firmly, then I probably would have ended it with: even though I despise your point of view, I will support your right to express it.
Okay, we just had a communication problem. Peace. (Well. Peace together with relentless mockery of religion ;) )
The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo are celebrated (rightly so!) as martyrs of the freedom of speech. It is in honoring their legacy that I freely speak my own mind.
1. First and foremost, I am a believing, though not practicing, Christian of the Orthodox faith. In all my good conscience, with all my heart , and of my own free will I believe, subscribe and confess the Creed or Symbol of Faith (http://oca.org/orthodoxy/prayers/symbol-of-faith).
2. Second most importantly, I am a liberal*, precisely because I am a Christian of the Orthodox faith.
* etymologically, liberal comes from Latin and has two meanings: (1) > liberalitas, meaning "generosity", as in "giving liberally" and (2) > liberalis, meaning "worthy of a free person ", as in "master of liberal arts".
3. I have never ever read Charlie Hebdo and I was only vaguely aware of its existence until these recent events.
4. It seems that they made it their program and creed to mock and desecrate each and any religious faith and symbols thereof, be it Islam, Judaism or Christianity.
5. It was their inalienable right to do so.
6. I believe that having the right to do something is not at all the same as being right in doing it.
7. By their cartoons they might have deeply hurt my personal feelings, yet I´d have never thought of killing them all for that.
8. Cutting a long story short, I can produce hundreds of verses from both the Old and the New Testament condemning violence and extolling pacifism without any qualification of race or creed; I defy the apologists of Islam as a "relligion of peace" to produce one single verse from the Quran in the same vein.
9. Those of you who have cared to actually read the Quran, raise your hand!
10. To hear that France is the mother and father of laicity and freedom of speech is preposterous. President Hollande did not care to wish the majoritarian French Christians "Merry Christmas!" , yet he was only too eager to compliment the minoritarian Muslims on the Ramadan... And The French Revolution was one of the worst offenders against freedom of speech the history has ever known...
11. Multiculturalism and political correctness were from their beginnings, are right now, and forever will be, sad and tragic testimonies to human idiocy.
12. The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were not the first, nor will they be the last, victims of the stupidity, ignorance, irresponsibility and cowardice of the Western European mainstream politicians of the last 50 years, Left and Right alike.
13. When nobody except the fools are willing to call a spade a spade, let nobody be astonished that it is the fools who will win the elections.
14. Read Genesis 16, for the most accurate prediction of the times we are living in.
Quote from: Marc on January 09, 2015, 10:35:06 AM
I don't believe that Islam is the problem.
Of course not. It´s all about Buddhism and ancient Greek Polytheism.
Quote from: Florestan on January 09, 2015, 11:45:41 AM
The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo are celebrated (rightly so!) as martyrs of the freedom of speech. It is in honoring their legacy that I freely speak my own mind.
1. First and foremost, I am a believing, though not practicing, Christian of the Orthodox faith. In all my good conscience, with all my heart , and of my own free will I believe, subscribe and confess the Creed or Symbol of Faith (http://oca.org/orthodoxy/prayers/symbol-of-faith).
2. Second most importantly, I am a liberal*, precisely because I am a Christian of the Orthodox faith.
* etymologically, liberal comes from Latin and has two meanings: (1) > liberalitas, meaning "generosity", as in "giving liberally" and (2) > liberalis, meaning "worthy of a free person ", as in "master of liberal arts".
3. I have never ever read Charlie Hebdo and I was only vaguely aware of its existence until these recent events.
4. It seems that they made it their program and creed to mock and desecrate each and any religious faith and symbols thereof, be it Islam, Judaism or Christianity.
5. It was their inalienable right to do so.
6. I believe that having the right to do something is not at all the same as being right in doing it.
7. By their cartoons they might have deeply hurt my personal feelings, yet I´d have never thought of killing them all for that.
8. Cutting a long story short, I can produce hundreds of verses from both the Old and the New Testament condemning violence and extolling pacifism without any qualification of race or creed; I defy the apologists of Islam as a "relligion of peace" to produce one single verse from the Quran in the same vein.
9. Those of you who have cared to actually read the Quran, raise your hand!
10. To hear that France is the mother and father of laicity and freedom of speech is preposterous. President Hollande did not care to wish the majoritarian French Christians "Merry Christmas!" , yet he was only too eager to compliment the minoritarian Muslims on the Ramadan... And The French Revolution was one of the worst offenders against freedom of speech the history has ever known...
11. Multiculturalism and political correctness were from their beginnings, are right now, and forever will be, sad and tragic testimonies to human idiocy.
12. The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were not the first, nor will they be the last, victims of the stupidity, ignorance, irresponsibility and cowardice of the Western European mainstream politicians of the last 50 years, Left and Right alike.
13. When nobody except the fools are willing to call a spade a spade, let nobody be astonished that it is the fools who will win the elections.
14. Read Genesis 16, for the most accurate prediction of the times we are living in.
re 9
(http://westeastonpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/raised-hand.jpg)
and
(http://westeastonpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/raised-hand.jpg)
because I have read it in two translations, one a traditional direct one, and one with the verses re-arranged to be in the chronological order most muslim scholars advance.
I have also read several collections of selected hadith including a translation of abu Muslim.
As well as many books on the formation of Islam, hadith, isnads, biographies of Muhammed based on muslim sources, and the early history of the Koran.
Quote from: Ken B on January 09, 2015, 11:58:36 AM
re 9
(http://westeastonpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/raised-hand.jpg)
and
(http://westeastonpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/raised-hand.jpg)
because I have read it in two translations, one a traditional direct one, and one with the verses re-arranged to be in the chronological order most muslim scholars advance.
I have also read several collections of selected hadith including a translation of abu Muslim.
As well as many books on the formation of Islam, hadith, isnads, biographies of Muhammed based on muslim sources, and the early history of the Koran.
Great! Then you should be able to produce at least one verse of it extolling non-violence and condemning violence without any qualifications of race and creed. You´ll make my day by so doing, honestly.
Quote from: Florestan on January 09, 2015, 11:45:41 AM
8. Cutting a long story short, I can produce hundreds of verses from both the Old and the New Testament condemning violence and extolling pacifism without any qualification of race or creed; I defy the apologists of Islam as a "relligion of peace" to produce one single verse from the Quran in the same vein.
And in the words of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos:
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."It was this exact quote by Pope Benedict XVI in a 2006 lecture at Regensburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture) that caused some uproar at the time, presumably for being too true for hypocrite ears.
Quote from: Florestan on January 09, 2015, 12:12:01 PM
Great! Then you should be able to produce at least one verse of it extolling non-violence and condemning violence without any qualifications of race and creed. You´ll make my day by so doing, honestly.
It's a different peace than the
turn the other cheek-peace of Jesus, it's a more pragmatic point of view.
"If thy enemy inclines toward peace, then thou should seek peace also, and put thy trust in God" (Quran 8:61).
But even if Islam were categorical violent and barbaric and so on, does this give me/you the right to be violent and barbaric, too? If someone else is a killer, does that give me the right to be a killer, too? Should I copy other people's barbaric behaviour?
For ages and ages, many people claimed that Christ's message was nothing but peaceful, yet his followers have the blood of million innocent people on their hands, to gain and hold on to power and deter dissenters.
Quote from: Florestan on January 09, 2015, 11:45:41 AM
[....]
11. Multiculturalism and political correctness were from their beginnings, are right now, and forever will be, sad and tragic testimonies to human idiocy.
Yes, that's what many people want us to believe.
Well, thank the non-existing God that we have intelligent people around who start wars against other cultures to make us all happy. Peace and striving for peace is boring. Let's go for this wise intercultural Happy World War then, and, after millions of reasonless victims, let's be peaceful idiots and be political correct and multicultural again. Let's repeat history over and over to prove we will never learn.
I like the Russian approach. A few years ago, the Saudis asked for permission to build a mosque in Russia. Russian church representatives said: Fine - if you let us build an Orthodox Church in Saudi Arabia. Needless to say, the deal fell through.
I really find despicable how the Charlie Hebdo massacre is used by so many people, and also here, as a simple and practical tool to be digested and used at the service of their ideas against a race, a religion, against immigration, or to promote the silly (and also quite old fashioned) Huntingtonesque reasonings.
To these few persons : Charlie Hebdo is and has always been, and will always be, a pacifist journal. So, if you want to talk of war, you might think of doing it somewhere else than in a topic dedicated to homages to the victims at Charlie Hebdo (and, eventually, to other victims of this week's attack). Because in doing what you do, you are just insulting the memory of these wonderful people. And I believe that people who use someone's murder and its motives, and distort it for a completely opposite cause than those that guided this person and caused his death, must have a very cheap conception of honor, actually not really much more developed that the killer's.
Quote from: Discobolus on January 09, 2015, 05:49:23 PM
I really find despicable how the Charlie Hebdo massacre is used by so many people, and also here, as a simple and practical tool to be digested and used at the service of their ideas against a race, a religion, against immigration, or to promote the silly (and also quite old fashioned) Huntingtonesque reasonings.
To these few persons : Charlie Hebdo is and has always been, and will always be, a pacifist journal. So, if you want to talk of war, you might think of doing it somewhere else than in a topic dedicated to homages to the victims at Charlie Hebdo (and, eventually, to other victims of this week's attack). Because in doing what you do, you are just insulting the memory of these wonderful people. And I believe that people who use someone's murder and its motives, and distort it for a completely opposite cause than those that guided this person and caused his death, must have a very cheap conception of honor, actually not really much more developed that the killer's.
As we say in Bridge, double. Cite a racist comment from anyone on this thread. Cite one or stop calling names.
You claim to know, you alone it sounds, what caused their deaths. I say it was religious bigots yelling Allahu Akhbar and shooting them. What's your theory?
And "war" is a polite term for this http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/01/08/nigerias-911-boko-haram-kills-2000-in-attack-on-baga-city-burnt-to-the-ground/ (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/01/08/nigerias-911-boko-haram-kills-2000-in-attack-on-baga-city-burnt-to-the-ground/)
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on January 09, 2015, 02:08:22 PM
I like the Russian approach. A few years ago, the Saudis asked for permission to build a mosque in Russia. Russian church representatives said: Fine - if you let us build an Orthodox Church in Saudi Arabia. Needless to say, the deal fell through.
Which is exactly the wrong approach. One of the core principles of the western world is freedom of belief (as well as the separation of church and state - I find it quite scary that to build a religious building in Russia, you have to go through
the church?!). Abandoning our values just to 'get back' at cultures that don't share them puts us on the way to, well, Saudi Arabia.
Willem, today : http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/charlie-hebdo-cartoonist-scoffs-vomits-supporters-article-1.2072906
;D 8)
Luz also made similar declarations. As he says, "Even Putin could agree on a peace dove".
http://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/medias/charlie-hebdo/des-dessinateurs-de-charlie-hebdo-denoncent-les-recuperations_793555.html
Quote from: Rinaldo on January 10, 2015, 01:44:52 AM
to build a religious building in Russia, you have to go through the church?!).
Don't know how you got that impression. If you want to build a mosque or synagogue, the church has no power over that.
QuoteAbandoning our values just to 'get back' at cultures that don't share them puts us on the way to, well, Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is the biggest funder of Islamic extremism all over the world. A Saudi-funded mosque on your territory is likely to be a locus of radicalism, and possibly terrorism.
Calling bullshit
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/are-we-really-all-charlie-no-no-and-shamefully-no/story-fni0ffxg-1227180871950?nk=30a6e5706f6b42ffa51a3a65ac3bc075 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/are-we-really-all-charlie-no-no-and-shamefully-no/story-fni0ffxg-1227180871950?nk=30a6e5706f6b42ffa51a3a65ac3bc075)
Quote from: Marc on January 09, 2015, 08:48:10 AM
We should try to reach out to the frustrated islamic youth in the western world (like the suburbs of large cities like Paris), together with those imams, and show them that a holy war isn't the answer to their problems and offer them civilized alternatives.
Indeed, that´s the simplest, most effective solution. They shoot us with Kalashnikovs, blow us up with bombs and cut our throats on camera? No problem. All we have to do is: put spectacles on, clear throat and tell them "Gentlemen, this is not good; this is actually very mean. Please, please, please, behave yourselves, otherwise we will have to turn the other cheek!" --- and lo and behold!, they will be instantly turned into peaceful, law-abiding citizens.
Quote from: Rinaldo on January 10, 2015, 01:44:52 AM
Which is exactly the wrong approach. One of the core principles of the western world is freedom of belief
Oh yes, that is exactly what freedom of belief is meant for: building all across and all around Europe places of Islamic indoctrination and propaganda (as if there weren´too many already).
What you guys basically suggest is that, the deeper the ostrich buries its head in the sand when in danger, the more chances of surviving it has. ;D
Quote from: Rinaldo on January 10, 2015, 01:44:52 AM
Which is exactly the wrong approach. One of the core principles of the western world is freedom of belief (as well as the separation of church and state - I find it quite scary that to build a religious building in Russia, you have to go through the church?!). Abandoning our values just to 'get back' at cultures that don't share them puts us on the way to, well, Saudi Arabia.
There are mosques in Moscow, private and public, and the church has no control. The city does, through zoning and building permits. The Suadi government sought permits to build and fund a mosque. To make a point the orthodox church made a counter offer to build a church in Ryadh. The Saudi government declined. The city authorities in Moscow have likewise declined the Saudis.
There is reason to believe the Moscow govt is opposing mosques to deter muslims living there. The mayor of Moscow advocated just exactly that. But there is nothing wrong ipso facto with denying the Saudi GOVERNMENT permission to build any sort of facility, especially when they show such bad faith, as Torso noted.
I also find it funny you cite Russia as if it were a bastion of free speech, religion, and thought!
Quote from: Ken B on January 11, 2015, 07:07:05 AM
Calling bullshit
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/are-we-really-all-charlie-no-no-and-shamefully-no/story-fni0ffxg-1227180871950?nk=30a6e5706f6b42ffa51a3a65ac3bc075 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/are-we-really-all-charlie-no-no-and-shamefully-no/story-fni0ffxg-1227180871950?nk=30a6e5706f6b42ffa51a3a65ac3bc075)
The whole "Je suis Charlie" thing really does feel disingenuous. People today are very eager to be "activists" and jump on whatever social media bandwagon there is so they can feel like they're "making a difference." In most cases these people's support amounts to little more than using a hashtag on Twitter and pretending like they know anything about the issue at all. Then in a few weeks they'll forget about this and focus their outrage on the next social movement.
Quote from: Florestan on January 11, 2015, 07:35:13 AMIndeed, that´s the simplest, most effective solution. They shoot us with Kalashnikovs, blow us up with bombs and cut our throats on camera?
Yes and we call them terrorists and deal with them accordingly. Your rhetoric suggests that muslim = terrorist, which, in a world where there's over billion people of Islamic faith, is simply not the truth.
The point is to reach out to the young, disenfranchised muslims
before they end up with a Kalashnikov in their hands.
Quote from: Rinaldo on January 11, 2015, 10:23:19 AM
Your rhetoric suggests that muslim = terrorist
I said no such thing. What I did say is that islam was far from being "the religion of peace". The Quran is fullpacked with calls to violence and aggression against infidels. Muhammad himself was a violent man, he killed and ordered killings, he raped and ordered rapes. He put to death about anyone he could capture who mocked, insulted and criticized him. Muslims are told to emulate their prophet. Is it any wonder some of them do just that?
I say it loudly and clearly: if the vast majority of muslims are peaceful and decent people, it is not because of islam, but in spite of it. It is not because they follow Muhammad and his teachings, but precisely because they do not. But of course you don´t have to take my word for it. Read the Quran, read the history of Muhammad´s life and deeds and see for yourself.
Quote from: Florestan on January 11, 2015, 10:55:55 AM
I said no such thing. What I did say is that islam was far from being "the religion of peace". The Quran is fullpacked with calls to violence and aggression against infidels.
It's been a time since I've read it but I don't recall anything that wouldn't be comparable to the darker stuff one can find in the Bible. It's a religion, full stop. And religion can be twisted in a lot of ways, as history has sadly shown.
Quote from: Rinaldo on January 11, 2015, 11:09:44 AM
It's been a time since I've read it but I don't recall anything that wouldn't be comparable to the darker stuff one can find in the Bible. It's a religion, full stop. And religion can be twisted in a lot of ways, as history has sadly shown.
There is the -- breathtakingly arrogant -- mistake: "twisted". The aggressive interpretations of Islam are not the only ones possible, or held now, or held historically. But they are a fully legitimate reading, held by untold millions of muslims who know their books better than you do, now and for 1400 years; and they can cite chapter and verse.
That is part of why I say we are watching a civil war within Islam, between the bellicose and the more irenic. We are mostly bystanders. The worst thing we can do is give the hard liners easy victory.
Quote from: The Six on January 11, 2015, 09:58:55 AM
The whole "Je suis Charlie" thing really does feel disingenuous. People today are very eager to be "activists" and jump on whatever social media bandwagon there is so they can feel like they're "making a difference." In most cases these people's support amounts to little more than using a hashtag on Twitter and pretending like they know anything about the issue at all. Then in a few weeks they'll forget about this and focus their outrage on the next social movement.
Yes. I remember when bashing Charlie Hebdo was flavour of the month.
My friend who lived in Paris for 30 years thinks it might be different this time. I value his judgment, but I am still skeptical. More skeptical then about the non-French. We will see.
Meanwhile, in Nigeria...
Just as the Paris events unfolded, Boko Haram had a bomb detonated at the gate of a public market. The salient fact of this is that the bomb was wrapped around an unknowing 10-year old girl. Of course, she was among the many casualties (19?), her body instantly cut off in 2 and sent flying yards and yards away.
A lying future http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/paris-attacks-we-must-overcome-fear-or-selfcensorship-will-spread (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/paris-attacks-we-must-overcome-fear-or-selfcensorship-will-spread)
Quote from: André on January 11, 2015, 12:47:29 PM
Meanwhile, in Nigeria...
Just as the Paris events unfolded, Boko Haram had a bomb detonated at the gate of a public market. The salient fact of this is that the bomb was wrapped around an unknowing 10-year old girl. Of course, she was among the many casualties (19?), her body instantly cut off in 2 and sent flying yards and yards away.
And terrible things are happening to the Palestinians in Gaza.
Apparently some french pupils objected to a minute's silence for those who died in France last week, saying that it was unfair, that a double standard is operating.
The French news was full of stuff yesterday focusing on the role of schools. I have no idea what the teachers in secondary education can say to the kids. That they should campagne against perceived injustice peaceably? . . . I don't think that will be very convincing as an effective strategy for change.
By the way, the cartoons I've seen in Charlie Hebdo aren't so very offensive - they're offensive to extremists that's all. The famous one just shows Mahomet saying that it's tough to be loved by arseholes, with a headline saying that Mahomet is overwhelmed by fundamentalists. Nothing offensive about more moderate Islam as far as I know.
The one Discobolus has chosen is one I hadn't seen before, I think it's more offensive, even though I agree with the idea.
What I don't know is whether Charlie Hebdo published similar things about fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christians. If not, well . . . it's not fair.
(http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/AimeeParLesCons.jpg)
Quote from: Ken B on January 12, 2015, 06:51:14 AM
A lying future http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/paris-attacks-we-must-overcome-fear-or-selfcensorship-will-spread (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/paris-attacks-we-must-overcome-fear-or-selfcensorship-will-spread)
Spot on.
Florestan, I think you should change your avatar and ask you to do so. I find it deeply offensive and purely xenophobic. Racism is not an opinion, and has nothing to do with what Charlie Hebdo stands for, and what I and (I think) most of the people posting on this forum want to see.
Quote from: Discobolus on January 12, 2015, 08:12:12 AM
Florestan, I think you should change your avatar and ask you to do so. I find it deeply offensive
Discobolus, I think you should change your avatar (although not asking you to do so, because it´s none of my business what avatar you use). I find it deeply offensive.
I´m curious, though: do you even know who Charles Martel was? And in case you do, what´s he got to do with racism and xenophobia, pray tell?
Quote from: Mandryka on January 12, 2015, 07:46:26 AM
And terrible things are happening to the Palestinians in Gaza.
Apparently some french pupils objected to a minute's silence for those who died in France last week, saying that it was unfair, that a double standard is operating.
The French news was full of stuff yesterday focusing on the role of schools. I have no idea what the teachers in secondary education can say to the kids. That they should campagne against perceived injustice peaceably? . . . I don't think that will be very convincing as an effective strategy for change.
By the way, the cartoons I've seen in Charlie Hebdo aren't so very offensive - they're offensive to extremists that's all. The famous one just shows Mahomet saying that it's tough to be loved by arseholes, with a headline saying that Mahomet is overwhelmed by fundamentalists. Nothing offensive about more moderate Islam as far as I know.
The one Discobolus has chosen is one I hadn't seen before, I think it's more offensive, even though I agree with the idea.
What I don't know is whether Charlie Hebdo published similar things about fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christians. If not, well . . . it's not fair.
(http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/AimeeParLesCons.jpg)
The claim is that it's an offense against sharia because it depicts Mohammed at all. It does rather seem though that the real offense is the kaffir not bowing down. You can see from the link in my sig that in fact there have been muslim depictions of Mohammed for a very long time.
Of course Charlie Hebdo need not be fair. And "fairness" is not the complaint. But yes CH mocks Jews and Christians and their books quite savagely.
This phrase, Je suis Charlie Martel, slipped out of Jean Marie Le Pen's mouth, it certainly presents a more agressive stance towards muslims than "Je suis Charlie" The latter is saying I am a victim too; the former is saying I am a soldier who is going to hold back the muslim threat.
One aspect of all this which interests me is to do with the French attitude towards freedom of speech. France's record doesn't seem so good here - they stopped Coluche when they decided that they didn't like what he was saying, and they stopped Dieudonné too. In the UK I don't think the government would get away with denying people the right to airtime like they did with Coluche, the journalists wouldn't let them. It's as if the establishment controls the media much more in France than here. Here the media control the political establishment ;)
So I find it a bit rich that this thing that Voltaire didn't say about fighting to the death to defend the right to speak, even when I don't agree with what you're saying, is being touted everywhere at the moment.
But maybe I've really misunderstood French culture - it's not easy to understand another culture.
Quote from: Mandryka on January 12, 2015, 09:44:30 AM
This phrase, Je suis Charles Martel, slipped out of Jean Marie Le Pen's mouth, it certainly presents a more agressive stance towards muslims than "Je suis Charlie" The latter is saying I am a victim too; the former is saying I am a soldier who is going to hold back the muslim threat.
One aspect of all this which interests me is to do with the French attitude towards freedom of speech. France's record doesn't seem so good here - they stopped Coluche when they decided that they didn't like what he was saying, and they stopped Dieudonné too. In the UK I don't think the government would get away with denying people the right to airtime like they did with Coluche, the journalists wouldn't let them. It's as if the establishment controls the media much more in France than here. Here the media control the political establishment ;)
So I find it a bit rich that this thing that Voltaire didn't say about fighting to the death to defend the right to speak, even when I don't agree with what you're saying, is being touted everywhere at the moment.
But maybe I've really misunderstood French culture - it's not easy to understand another culture.
I remember complaining about Diedonne being banned to friends. My own opinion was that rather than banning him, his remarks should be widely quoted. I want everyone to see that kind of attitude. Don't know Coluche.
In Canada we had, and to some diminishing extent still have, kangaroo courts that have done extraordinary things. A protestant minister was *banned for life* from preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality for instance. One government official dismissed free speech, saying "that is an American value" not a Canadian one.
Quote from: Ken B on January 12, 2015, 09:53:53 AM
I remember complaining about Diedonne being banned to friends. My own opinion was that rather than banning him, his remarks should be widely quoted. I want everyone to see that kind of attitude. Don't know Coluche.
In Canada we had, and to some diminishing extent still have, kangaroo courts that have done extraordinary things. A protestant minister was *banned for life* from preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality for instance. One government official dismissed free speech, saying "that is an American value" not a Canadian one.
(http://auto.img.v4.skyrock.net/2635/2132635/pics/2037686533_1.jpg) (http://pmcdn.priceminister.com/photo/Collectif-Hara-Kiri-N-231-Coluche-Un-President-Bleu-Blanc-Merde-Revue-509111348_ML.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/v/aWEbtiH0jqY
That culture thing... One essential trait of the French is that they will defend free speech in some cases, but not all. For example, you can't silence Coluche and Charlie Hebdo even though they are (were in the case of the former) savagely anarchist in their pronouncement. And yet it is verboten to discuss corruption of officials and/or the sex life of the Président. This last taboo has somewhat taken a beating under Sarkozy, who was quite open about his amorous life. IOW what is public MUST be debatable, what is private is best kept under (bed sheet or swiss bank) covers.
The BBC indulges in bullying whataboutery regarding the Kosher market killings, and a brilliant insight on European anti-semitism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/12/the-bbcs-tim-wilcox-projects-the-last-two-hundred-years-of-european-anti-jewish-ideology-on-an-elderly-french-woman/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/12/the-bbcs-tim-wilcox-projects-the-last-two-hundred-years-of-european-anti-jewish-ideology-on-an-elderly-french-woman/)
Quote from: André on January 12, 2015, 11:26:36 AM
That culture thing... One essential trait of the French is that they will defend free speech in some cases, but not all. For example, you can't silence Coluche and Charlie Hebdo even though they are (were in the case of the former) savagely anarchist in their pronouncement. And yet it is verboten to discuss corruption of officials and/or the sex life of the Président. This last taboo has somewhat taken a beating under Sarkozy, who was quite open about his amorous life. IOW what is public MUST be debatable, what is private is best kept under (bed sheet or swiss bank) covers.
My point was that Coluche was silenced, he found himself unable to get air time on public TV, for example. During the presidential campaign.
Quote from: Ken B on January 12, 2015, 11:33:26 AM
The BBC indulges in bullying whataboutery regarding the Kosher market killings, and a brilliant insight on European anti-semitism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/12/the-bbcs-tim-wilcox-projects-the-last-two-hundred-years-of-european-anti-jewish-ideology-on-an-elderly-french-woman/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/12/the-bbcs-tim-wilcox-projects-the-last-two-hundred-years-of-european-anti-jewish-ideology-on-an-elderly-french-woman/)
.
Part of the confusion comes about because Israel sets itself up as the homeland for Jews, even this week Netanyahu said something along those lines, inviting French jews to Israel. Israel itself promotes the idea that Jews out of israel aren't at home, and does so loudly. He has his own (political) reasons for encouraging this idea I suppose.
As far as Isreal being colonizers oppressing the natives - well that's what they are doing in Gaza, Jerusalem, Hebron etc.
The French attitude towards free speech is perfectly clear. You can say everything, except when it is illegal, therefore :
- no apology of terrorism and violent actions
- no negationism or apology of crimes against humanity (which is the case with Dieudonné)
- no racist and xenophobic claims or insults.
Of course, religion or political ideas do not, in any case, apply to a specific "race" or, more precisely, origin, therefore criticizing or mocking religion and political opponents has no reason to be illegal. That being one of the great heritages of the Lumières that were recently debated on other threads.
And I don't see where France could receive lessons from countries where you find laws against blasphemy, or where newspapers blurred covers of Charlie Hebdo next to Charb or Cabu. Seriously, have you already forgotten where Charlie Hebdo is, or are you only making absurd points just for the pleasure of it?
"Je suis Charlie Martel" is a reference to a sentence by far-right ex-leader (and condemned multiple times) Jean-Marie Le Pen, who explains that the solution to avoid more terrorist actions is to throw all muslims and arabs out of France, as Charles Martel supposedly did in Poitiers. Which is a clearly racist and xenophobic claim.
As to Charles Martel, it's funny that a Romanian would think he'd make a lesson of French history to a French, even if I didn't have a PhD in Medieval history. But I think Le Pen and his admirers (among which, apparently, Florestan) should study history more, and stop trying to compare the war between the Franks and the Umeyyads in the 8th century to Northern African immigration during the past decades. Again, it is at the same time ridiculous and deeply offensive.
I still demand that Florestan changes his avatar or is made to do so. If not, then I'll consider the political line here is decidedly more officially on the far right that I thought, and will have no choice but to leave your company. I can't stay on a place where racism, xenophobia and illegal claims for violent racist actions are accepted.
Quote from: Discobolus on January 12, 2015, 12:06:31 PM
I still demand that Florestan changes his avatar or is made to do so
Soyez realistes, demandez l'impossible! ;D
If you, or any moderator for that matter, can produce one single racist or xenophobic post of mine, here or elsewhere, I'll repent and change my avatar. Until then, I'll keep it. Meanwhile you can object to my signature as well.
Your avatar IS racist and xenophobic, in addition to being a crude insult to the memory of the victims of the attacks.
QuoteThe French attitude towards free speech is perfectly clear. You can say everything, except when it is illegal, therefore :
- no apology of terrorism and violent actions
- no negationism or apology of crimes against humanity (which is the case with Dieudonné)
- no racist and xenophobic claims or insults.
I think you have made Mandryka's point: France's record on free speech is spotty. All of these impede debate. Who should be the arbiter of what counts as 'xenophobic claims'? I claim the Germans invaded France, the Russians raped German women, Italians make good prosciutto. And more obvious than even that: " You can say everything, except when it is illegal". Nice to be allowed to do only what is permitted!
Quote"Je suis Charlie Martel" is a reference to a sentence by far-right ex-leader (and condemned multiple times) Jean-Marie Le Pen, who explains that the solution to avoid more terrorist actions is to throw all muslims and arabs out of France, as Charles Martel supposedly did in Poitiers. Which is a clearly racist and xenophobic claim.
That was Le Pen's position long before Charlie Hebdo was bombed, so it cannot logically be a synonym for that position. Not only that, but Le Pen is not the only person to have used that phrase. Not only that, I do not accept you as sole arbiter of what the phrase means. In some contexts I agree it may be a sly way of saying what you think it does. But not necessarily, not always, and not explicitly. Florestan can elaborate what he means if he chooses. I think other interpretations make sense too.
QuoteI still demand that Florestan changes his avatar or is made to do so. If not, then I'll consider the political line here is decidedly more officially on the far right that I thought,
This is an egregious and foolish error. If the moderators decide Florestan's avatar is within the bounds of what they will accept that does not mean they endorse or disavow any meaning behind it. Further if you cannot be part of a discussion where the "official position" aligns with your preferences and prejudices that is your failing, not a failing of GMG or its moderators.
Quoteillegal claims for violent racist actions
What if I say likening the Torah to a roll of toilet paper is a repudiation of the Jews, who define their identity by it, and accuse you of advocating violence against Jews? You'd call me stupid, and you'd be right.
Quote from: Mandryka on January 12, 2015, 12:32:26 PM
Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que ton avatar veut dire, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour que tu aies le droit de l'utiliser.
Again, an appeal to violence is not an opinion, but dangerous and illegal. Not only in France. Again, there are illegal things that one cannot say, even where free speech is absolutely free. One cannot legaly make appeals for the jihad, for instance, not in France, not in the UK, not in the US...
About the Le Pen reference, it is clear. Even the font and colors are identical.
http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2015/01/09/jean-marie-le-pen-front-national-charlie-martel-hebdo-tweet-declarations_n_6443248.html
Quote from: Discobolus on January 12, 2015, 12:33:44 PM
Again, an appeal to violence is not an opinion, but dangerous and illegal.
Sue me!
Quote from: Discobolus on January 12, 2015, 12:32:59 PM
Your avatar IS racist and xenophobic, in addition to being a crude insult to the memory of the victims of the attacks.
Your avatar is a crude insult to my, and tens of millions of other people's, religious belief, so we're even.
Things are becoming overheated here. We don't have total free speech here as the rule is that there should be no personal insults and there are other kinds of behaviour that can draw censure or involve editing or deletion of posts. Clearly some here, especially two have upset one another and I have decided to lock this thread.
There is also the issue of the avatars, it seems to me that again, each find the other's avatar offensive. I am not going to call only one to remove the perceived offense. I am not convinced that either of you originally purposed offense to the other, though it seems you are each content that it has upset the other, not an attitude that I want to see continued.
In locking the topic I want you to each basically avoid the other until things cool down.
Knight
I am making the final post in this thread, it is in fact the cover for the newest issue of
Charlie Hebdo, and I think it makes a good point in human relations, beyond politics, beyond religion.
(http://s1.lemde.fr/image/2015/01/12/534x0/4554744_6_315c_la-une-de-charlie-hebdo-a-paraitre_d73c9388c981f7d63f82aaf5ae3822a9.png)
GB
8)