Massacre in Paris - a dozen newspeople shot

The failure of security measures is one serious point…and one French and overseas authorities will be spending much more time analyzing and figuring out. Especially considering at least 2 of the suspects were already under French police surveillance, at least one served time in prison for recruiting and training with an Al-Qaeda affiliate, and they were well-known to authorities in other nations such as Britain and the US.

According to French authorities, they have confirmed they were part of the same terrorist cell:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/09/us-france-shooting-montrouge-idUSKBN0KI12P20150109

and an Al-Qaida group in Yemen has claimed responsibility and claims to have directed the terrorist attack:

http://news.yahoo.com/yemeni-official-suspect-paris-attack-fought-al-qaida-150835957.html

Confirmation this was more about perpetuating attention-getting violence for the sake of reviving a flagging movement which has been sustaining many losses from anti-terrorist operations against them, factional infighting within the group, and effectively sidelined by ISIS/ISIL.

Perhaps due to your continuing refusal to define your position in simpler terms, or my own lack of perception, I remain absolutely confused about which bandwagon you claim not to want to jump on?

Is it the one that carries the people who felt dejected by the atrocity of the massacre? The one that also supports the right to free speech? Or something more nebulous. Please do not tell me that you happen to support the notion that the Charlie Hebdo deserved what it got and that the massacre could be justified and not be the gratuitous slaughter of innocents? Please do not tell me that you’d be part of a group that would have supported the censure of the publication on the grounds it might offend someone?

Well, would you support the passing of tougher laws that authorize the arrest of people based on string presumptions of links to radical groups?

And, alternatively, what would you suggest the French police might have done differently? Fwiw, you can safely assume that the authorities have a good list of people who share the same profile.

Being “reckless” about free speech is not the same as being reckless about mountain climbing.

If u are “reckless” about free speech, u are subject to the whims of emotion.

If u are are a reckless mountain climber, u become a victim of physics. The laws of physics are not whims. F=ma is consistent & immutable. If u are stupid enough to think the laws of physics don’t apply to u, then u should pay for your own rescue.

Calling a cartoon reckless is ridiculous. It’s a cartoon. There are lots of offensive cartoons. Probably, most of the good ones.

There’s some school of thought to the definition that satire is meant as social commentary against those with meaningful systemic influence along with political and economic power within a given society in order to provide constructive criticism so they can correct the error or at least be shamed for not doing so.

From that standpoint, using it against those who aren’t in such a position is at best, missing the point of the medium and if targeting marginalized groups such as the case of the depiction of the girls kidnapped and raped by Boko Haram demanding “No elimination of their welfare allocations”, little more than a form of cheap bullying by those with influence such as the editor/staff of a mass media publication against those who are already heavily marginalized and have no effective meaningful way to respond.

In that particular cartoon’s case, the kidnapping and rape victims of Boko Haram and those poor enough to be on public assistance.

That doesn’t necessarily mean they should be censored. However, it also doesn’t necessarily mean their content should be uncritically praised, free of criticism, or endorsed, either. Which is also keeping with the finest traditions of free speech.

Has anyone implied that supporting freedom of the press is the equivalent of asserting that the content of any work of art, any editorial, any political cartoon or other expression must be “uncritically praised or endorsed”? No, I don’t believe anyone has taken that position!

I fully support the notion that when someone puts out something I find offensive, I can take any number of actions to express my disgust. At the same time, I also support the notion that these people should be able to publish those offensive works without being subject to the penalty of assassination!

Publishing a cartoon is not “bullying.”

Can I support freedom of speech but not support extremely blasphemous cartoons and child porn?

Can I?

Do you understand that blasphemy is punishable by death TODAY in many countries, some of which the US has very strong ties with?

So that I believe, very strongly, that the position taken by the publication was extremely reckless.

Legal, manifestation of free speech, whatever. I don’t have a need to feel responsible to protect the right to free speech for hate speech. I just don’t see it the same way as some do. Because I know that free speech is limited, even in the US, and people are refusing to admit it. More importantly, people are refusing to admit that free speech SHOULD be limited.

Is child porn protected free speech in the US?

Nope.

Which people are refusing to admit it?

Freedom of the press should be limited? How? And, who decides? Child porn is illegal because of the actual children involved in producing it. Cartoon child porn is not illegal.

FYI
http://m.ibtimes.com/saudi-blogger-raif-badawi-publicly-flogged-insulting-islam-1778528

This culture is hopeless.

If the argument’s degenerated to the point that justification for cold-blooded murder is somehow being hid behind personal conceptions of what constitutes ‘free speech’ or ‘hate speech’, it seems a pretty pointless one.

Admittedly it’s a personal one, but I lean towards the concept that a society would be immeasurably better off for limiting membership to those who haven’t been brainwashed by culture/religion into picking up a long knife or Kalashnikov every time they feel they’ve been insulted.

“Blasphemy” is NOT punishable by death in France. The newspaper was NOT the one in the wrong, certainly not in any way which could be reasonably punished by death.

“Can I support freedom of speech but not support extremely blasphemous cartoons and child porn?”

Well, sure. I can support freedom of assembly but I can still despise Westboro and the KKK.

As a note, scout59 noted and xiggi then posted about a lack of a law about anti-Islamic speech. Those are prosecuted under “hate speech” laws. There have been a number of people fined in France over the past few years for saying things perceived to be potentially stirring up hatred. BTW, most of those comments were relatively innocuous and in one case were obviously political. I think some of these French cases involve politics of left versus right more than religion, but this isn’t an area I know well.

I note that today Sunni Muslims killed about 7 people with a bomb at a Shia mosque, after 4 Shia were killed at a volleyball game. This war between Sunni and Shia dwarfs what we see as attacks in the West. And Boko Harem has apparently killed another 2000 people over the past 5 days in Nigeria.

BTW, one of the murderers said bluntly on the phone before dying that he was financially backed through Yemen by the guy we killed last year. The levels to this are deep.

Consider the kid on trial here in Boston for the Marathon Bombing. His family was basically saved by the US as they bolted from Dagestan. And they repay us with mass murder. Look at Minnesota: Somalis who again literally owe their lives to the US are going to Iraq and Syria to fight with ISIS. People like to say, “It’s all x’s fault for not bringing this or that group into society.” Really? Giving you life isn’t enough?

Remember the Black Panthers? For all the misery inflicted on African-Americans, this small scale spurt of anti-American violence is pretty much the only expression of this since Nat Turner during slavery. But apparently Muslims are different and we can’t expect them to live peacefully. Now remember as I say this, I don’t mean you specifically.

Here are 2 Muslim voices, both Saudi:

First is columnist 'Aql Al-'Aql in an article in Al-Hayat (a London-based Saudi paper), titled “German Jews Defend Islam”:

"Islam and Muslims are in a state of oppression, especially in the West. In the Western subconscious, there is a stereotype linking Islam with violence, extremism, and terrorism. Who is responsible for this worldwide fear of Islam, the so-called ‘Islamophobia’?.. The world witnesses killing and violence towards innocent people in our Islamic world, carried out in the name of Islam. What do we expect Islam’s image to be like among people abroad, when they watch TV and browse social media and see images of innocents killed and having their throats slit just for not belonging to the same [religious] school as this or that group, or women of ethnic and religious minorities being captured [as slaves] in the Arab and Islamic world? This despicable behavior is enough to distort Islam’s image in the West for the next several hundred years. In light of the tragic state of Muslims, we cannot expect those who commit these crimes and tie them to Islam to do anything but exacerbate the religious and cultural conflict and drag Islam itself into it. There is no doubt that Islam is the biggest loser in this era.

“The world reads the statistics of Muslims killed by other Muslims. This data shows the West and Western peoples that Islam is a religion of violence that endangers the entire world. Unfortunately, we Muslims are providing the proof that this is [the nature of] Islam. Non-Muslim societies and countries are busy with their affairs and scientific discoveries, which serve all of mankind, including Muslims, while Muslims are busy killing each other. In this situation, how do we expect the world to treat us? Is it [not] right to fear anything related to Islam and Muslims?”

"In addition to the state of loss, lack of direction, and backwardness afflicting us, and the attempt to emerge from the cultural crisis befalling Muslims, some among us search for justification [and claim] that those behind the hostility towards Islam are an external force that is historically hostile to Islam. This could have happened in the past, and there have indeed been religious conflicts in our region. But is it logical for us to be trapped in these religious struggles? We all know that, throughout history, even in the West, there have been wars among peoples on a religious basis, but that with [the rise] of the industrial revolution and the secular state, the West emerged from the past and the history of the religious state.

The complexity of the cultural crisis in which we Muslims are trapped is that, on the one hand, we [see ourselves] as part of the modern world that is characterized by globalization, with all its economic, political, and social aspects, and of the information [revolution], which has swept across borders and continents. Yet we [still] use religion in our political struggle against the secular West. This is our true crisis. We all read and follow the blatant hostility of the Christian West [against the Muslim world]. But in its struggle with us, does this West ask for religious hegemony? Or [does it pursue] political and economic interests?.. We must not get dragged into [the perception] that the struggle between Islam and the West – which should be called capitalist rather than Christian – or even against Judaism as a religion, is inevitable. Our disagreement with some of the Jews is political, and we can find common ground with members of other faiths."

Here is former Al-Arabiya TV director 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed in the daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (also London-based Saudi paper) writing on the day of the Charlie Hebdo attack:

"It’s not difficult to describe the situation in Germany; there are bad Muslims and bad Germans. The 18,000 Germans who took to the streets of Dresden against what they dubbed the ‘Islamization of Germany’ include racists as well as angry people who have been affected by the heinous and ugly political acts committed by Muslims across the world. Among these Germans are those who blame others for the difficult economic situation they find themselves in, considering the influx of foreigners which has led to competition over jobs and benefits.

“Germany itself is home to Muslim religious and political extremists who succeeded in distorting the image of the other three million Muslims who live peacefully in Germany. Muslim extremists in Germany are more dangerous and harmful to Muslims than angry, racist and fascist Germans. Germany is a tolerant, secular and civil state that has 2,500 mosques. Its regulations, courts and executive institutions protect the Muslim community from racist groups. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has condemned the anti-Islam protests as a detestable act. The justice minister also led a protest against racists in the same square as the anti-Islam rally.”

His point, btw, is that it’s not enough for the Muslim community to denounce but they must act against the extremists in their midst. This is a very important point. The only people who can truly stop this violence are Muslims. They need to spy on extremists, turn them in and sometimes they need to go further.

I reject the very concept of blasphemy.

Child porn has an actual victim: that is why it is forbidden.

Look, I find the public statements of certain political commentators and politicians to be unspeakably vile. That’s MY problem. They have the right to express their misbegotten views. (Although frankly, many of them deserve to be sued for slander.)

Omg, do you have a line? Where is it, if there is one?

Although he is ostensibly expressing his own thoughts as a member of that community, I can’t help, but feel it is derived from pressure to issue an apologia to Westerners for actions by avowed terrorist group with a twisted sociopathic pathology who superficially share the same religion as he.

Some food for thought:

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/15/7394223/muslims-condemn-charlie-hebdo

This is the same mentality which caused my Korean-American friends to make similar public apologia on FB and IRL for the actions of Seung-Hui Cho during and some weeks after the Virginia Tech shootings. Especially after a few received similar demands from some ignorant “real 'murikans” about how they somehow shared responsibility for his actions at Virginia Tech solely because they happened to share the same ethnicity.

I myself got a similar earful from a crappy “stand up comic” not too long afterwards while with a couple of out-of-town friends who didn’t understand at first why I was so disturbed by said comic asking if I’m going to be the next mass murderer because I “looked Korean”.

Even though they meant well and tried to be aware, it took some time of explaining with a fair amount of obliviousness on their part due to their never having experienced being a “foreign looking” minority considering they were White and came from a small middle class town and state which is over 95% White as of the 2000 and 2010 censuses.

My explanation for one of them was later reinforced when he was placed in a similar position of being a “foreign looking minority” under suspicion in Japan and had a few similar experiences* including local cops profiling him because the region he was staying/studying in happened to be located not too far from a US military installation and they’ve had a recent history of crimes associated with its personnel.

  • Some neighbors and local cops assuming he was obsessed with finding prostitutes, getting himself drunk silly, making a loud nuisance and mess of the local neighborhood, and possibly involve himself in violent street crime.

"Do you understand that blasphemy is punishable by death TODAY in many countries, some of which the US has very strong ties with?

So that I believe, very strongly, that the position taken by the publication was extremely reckless."

Rush Limbaugh says many, many things I find extremely offensive. And I can do lots of things about that - I can boycott his sponsors, mention his egregious stuff on FB to draw attention to it, mock him mercilessly, or ignore it and hope it will go away. But I can’t go shooting him for it. And if I did go shoot him, the full onus would be on ME for engaging I violence, not on him for expressing a viewpoint. You have it very, very backwards.

“This is the same mentality which caused my Korean-American friends to make similar public apologia on FB and IRL for the actions of Seung-Hui Cho during and some weeks after the Virginia Tech shootings. Especially after a few received similar demands from some ignorant “real 'murikans” about how they somehow shared responsibility for his actions at Virginia Tech solely because they happened to share the same ethnicity.”

Did those ignorant “real 'murikans” demand specific apologies for VA Tech from your Korean-American friends at gunpoint?

If not, then your friends had a choice. As they were not shooters, they had no obligation to explain or apologize to anyone.

“Social pressure” is not pressure. You seem to think that when someone else feels a certain way and expresses it, that that pressures you to respond a certain way.