terrorist attack in Paris

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Nope. Sorry. No. You don't get to say it's idiotic to have offensive satire about Islam. No. You don't. That same publication had satire about Catholicism, Judaism, etc. There's no special targeting of Muslims. And you don't get to say "well, if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots not to expect violence". No.
The truth isn't that people make a point of satirizing Muslims. The point is that EVERYONE gets satirized. And only Muslims seem to get violent about that.
If your God can't deal with satire, your God is too small.

+1. I love how some muslims like to pick and choose what to get incensed about. Somehow it was ok for these terrorists to go completely against their religion and view child porn, drink, use drugs and commit crimes. Yet it was absolutely not ok (to the point that you have to kill!) to see cartoons violating their religion. Guess what? You cannot control how other people view you, your religion, and choose to talk about it. It's not persecution. It's a matter of life. Suck it up and move on. Since when it's ok to expect murder as a price to pay when you disagree with someone?

I think the point of the post Muslima quoted is valid. Why does demonstrating support for freedom of expression require publishing offensive cartoons? I understand sticking it to the terrorists, but is it necessary to offend non-terrorists in the process? I don't remember newspapers publishing photos from Hustler after Larry Flynt was shot. This is like the point I was trying to make yesterday. It is one thing to say that you disagree with what someone says, but defend their right to say it. It is a completely different story when you are the one saying it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Calm down. I didn't suggest you should know. I was informing you because I assumed that you didn't know.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Muslima, you really do not get it. there is no double standard, the people who were killed yesterday, of whom you admit you know nothing so may be you should learn a little, fought for their, and our, freedom to post satire about anything. they were sued multiple times by catholic organizations and won. the catholics who did not like their cartoons sued them and lost, did not kill them, firebomb their office, prevent them from publishing cartoons. CH did a special issue about Islam and they did an issue about the Holocaust. nothing happened after the Holocaust issue, but they were firebombed after the issue on Islam and killed yesterday by people who allegedly said they were avenging the prophet. newspapers are today re-printing many cartoons by CH, including cartoons depicting priests, politicians, jews and others. they print especially the ones about Islam not because of a double standard, but because the ones about Islam are the only ones that can cost people lives and the only ones people got serious death threats for. the person who wrote this article has no shame

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

There you go again, advocating self-imposed censorship due to a fear of violence. You just don't get it, do you?
Has it occurred to you that without a strong secular, open legal framework, Muslims would never be able to live in Western countries in the first place? Do you seriously think there aren't enough Christian religious fundamentalists in any Western country that their presence would be tolerated for a second without secular legal protection?

And "blasphemy law"? Please...who are we kidding here? Blasphemy law has no place in a modern, free, open, democratic society. They are unconstitutional in the US. So you can keep your leading scholars' views for yourself, because we reject them entirely, as they are no scholars of anything to us except your private beliefs.
If you want blasphemy laws in Western countries, Muslims would likely be their first victims. I can just imagine the Front National coming to power and having a field day with that notion.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Not a fan of that article. You/he are talking out of both sides of your/his mouth. Let's see. Freedom of speech should allow me to wear a burka, but it's arrogant, intransigent, and hypocritical to use your freedom of speech to publish cartoons that are offensive to me. Violence is wrong, but you're as responsible for the violence as the attackers because, uh, you used free speech in a way that's offensive to me, and this diminishes accountability for the violence.

Not a fan of the New Yorker article, either. Coming up next.

I am not. I cited the niqab ban to show the hypocrisy of the freedom of speech discourse. If Muslims are expected to accept the danish cartoons in the name of Freedom, then they should be allowed to dress as they pleased in the name of that same freedom. Nowhere in what was posted was it ever said that Violence was right or should be expected because of published cartoons or personal grievances of Muslims

PP again. To be very clear about your freedom of speech double standard, you have argued that
1. Women should be allowed to wear burkas freely, but
2. The cartoonists should have shown restraint.
Just to re-emphasize, others here have not accepted that the niqab ban is purely a freedom of speech issue, instead they have brought up issues such as a society preserving its own values (like KSA does) and protecting women from having the burka imposed on them (despite your you tube video, the jury is still out on what percent of women chooses the niwab vs. has it imposed. I could bring any number of ex-Muslim feminsists to counter your Yourtube video, except that I think such anecdotes are pointless.)

Your double standard about violence goes as follows:
1. Violence is wrong, of course, but
2. The journalists should have responded to threats of violence by publishing nicer cartoons, that is, they were "idiots" to not simply cave into threats of violence and thus partly culpable.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

Yes, I am bothered by the way both Muslims and Jews are portrayed in some of these cartoons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very thoughtful post pp.

Small blurb in today's Post: Judge orders women soldiers to stop accompanying 5 Guantanamo defendents as it is causing them religious distress.
So we have as a society fought for these women's inclusion in the armed forces, prepped and sent them to this locale, and now they are not allowed to perform their duties....because they are women? What am I.missing here??????

Cultural relativism.

Think about how these guys treat women back home, but we are having American women soldiers defer?

Thats like saying that if a woman is arrested in the US she has no right to have a female strip search her because it is a function of male guards job to strip search prisoners.

The women were escorting the prisoners to trial, not strip searching them

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Nope. Sorry. No. You don't get to say it's idiotic to have offensive satire about Islam. No. You don't. That same publication had satire about Catholicism, Judaism, etc. There's no special targeting of Muslims. And you don't get to say "well, if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots not to expect violence". No.
The truth isn't that people make a point of satirizing Muslims. The point is that EVERYONE gets satirized. And only Muslims seem to get violent about that.
If your God can't deal with satire, your God is too small.

+1. I love how some muslims like to pick and choose what to get incensed about. Somehow it was ok for these terrorists to go completely against their religion and view child porn, drink, use drugs and commit crimes. Yet it was absolutely not ok (to the point that you have to kill!) to see cartoons violating their religion. Guess what? You cannot control how other people view you, your religion, and choose to talk about it. It's not persecution. It's a matter of life. Suck it up and move on. Since when it's ok to expect murder as a price to pay when you disagree with someone?

I think the point of the post Muslima quoted is valid. Why does demonstrating support for freedom of expression require publishing offensive cartoons? I understand sticking it to the terrorists, but is it necessary to offend non-terrorists in the process? I don't remember newspapers publishing photos from Hustler after Larry Flynt was shot. This is like the point I was trying to make yesterday. It is one thing to say that you disagree with what someone says, but defend their right to say it. It is a completely different story when you are the one saying it.

read the OP of the WP today. last time around, the WP refused to published the Mohamed cartoons, this time they chose to do it and explained why ( I think they should not have caved last time). France is a democratic country with freedom and speech and expression, and a long tradition of satire. many people or groups get pissed here and there, but this has not resulted in censorship until now, when radical Islamists are trying to impose their values and morals and the entire society under threat of death and violence. this threat is working unfortunately, look at the number of US news organization that are going great length to avoid publishing the cartoons (see the CNN memo yesterday concerning even the covering of images of the cartoons in photographs of crowds of people protesting the murders). simply saying "I support your right to publish" is not enough in this case, when who publish is slaughtered like an animal. also, leaving a few standing for freedom will make them the targets next time. publishing the cartoons is important to show that violence will not win and that we will not self censor based on others' morals.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Nope. Sorry. No. You don't get to say it's idiotic to have offensive satire about Islam. No. You don't. That same publication had satire about Catholicism, Judaism, etc. There's no special targeting of Muslims. And you don't get to say "well, if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots not to expect violence". No.
The truth isn't that people make a point of satirizing Muslims. The point is that EVERYONE gets satirized. And only Muslims seem to get violent about that.
If your God can't deal with satire, your God is too small.

Re-read what was posted ,circle the part where it says "if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots, not to expect violence" and I will eat it. Clearly, Charlie Hebdo fired one of its employees for anti-Semitism, why the special treatment?

You said this: "At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen."
?????

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Calm down. I didn't suggest you should know. I was informing you because I assumed that you didn't know.

I don't need to be told to calm down. I'm very calm. It's condescending and unwarranted.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Calm down. I didn't suggest you should know. I was informing you because I assumed that you didn't know.

I don't need to be told to calm down. I'm very calm. It's condescending and unwarranted.

I apologize. I should have said, "Don't be so sensitive."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Nope. Sorry. No. You don't get to say it's idiotic to have offensive satire about Islam. No. You don't. That same publication had satire about Catholicism, Judaism, etc. There's no special targeting of Muslims. And you don't get to say "well, if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots not to expect violence". No.
The truth isn't that people make a point of satirizing Muslims. The point is that EVERYONE gets satirized. And only Muslims seem to get violent about that.
If your God can't deal with satire, your God is too small.

+1. I love how some muslims like to pick and choose what to get incensed about. Somehow it was ok for these terrorists to go completely against their religion and view child porn, drink, use drugs and commit crimes. Yet it was absolutely not ok (to the point that you have to kill!) to see cartoons violating their religion. Guess what? You cannot control how other people view you, your religion, and choose to talk about it. It's not persecution. It's a matter of life. Suck it up and move on. Since when it's ok to expect murder as a price to pay when you disagree with someone?

I think the point of the post Muslima quoted is valid. Why does demonstrating support for freedom of expression require publishing offensive cartoons? I understand sticking it to the terrorists, but is it necessary to offend non-terrorists in the process? I don't remember newspapers publishing photos from Hustler after Larry Flynt was shot. This is like the point I was trying to make yesterday. It is one thing to say that you disagree with what someone says, but defend their right to say it. It is a completely different story when you are the one saying it.

Not sure what your point is. The whole point of freedom of expression is that someone, somewhere will be offended. Why should we commiserate over Muslima's hurt feelings and do nothing about that bizarre anti-Catholic troll, or all the Landon and CIO haters for that matter, because, I dunno, in the latter cases that's somebody's "freedom of speech"? I'm not Catholic and have no connection to Landon, and yes the Landon point is a little spurious but the Catholic troll is not. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. The end. Also, I don't know about Larry Flynt, but there are plenty of gruesome photos on the daily papers.

FWIW, I take the cartoons as being a fight over the ability to keep publishing cartoons (in light of the earlier incidents) rather than an effort to offend per se. You became violent over Muhammed with a bomb in his turban? No, you can't restrict my freedoms with your threats of violence, instead I'm going to keep publishing similar cartoons. Aggressive, yes, but I wouldn't say it's motivated purely by a desire to offend. One of the CH guys was pretty clear that it wasn't spite, but being willing to die for his ideals, that motivated him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Calm down. I didn't suggest you should know. I was informing you because I assumed that you didn't know.

I don't need to be told to calm down. I'm very calm. It's condescending and unwarranted.

Meh. He keeps calling me butthurt when I'm just passed. It's an ad hominem, ignore it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Nope. Sorry. No. You don't get to say it's idiotic to have offensive satire about Islam. No. You don't. That same publication had satire about Catholicism, Judaism, etc. There's no special targeting of Muslims. And you don't get to say "well, if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots not to expect violence". No.
The truth isn't that people make a point of satirizing Muslims. The point is that EVERYONE gets satirized. And only Muslims seem to get violent about that.
If your God can't deal with satire, your God is too small.

+1. I love how some muslims like to pick and choose what to get incensed about. Somehow it was ok for these terrorists to go completely against their religion and view child porn, drink, use drugs and commit crimes. Yet it was absolutely not ok (to the point that you have to kill!) to see cartoons violating their religion. Guess what? You cannot control how other people view you, your religion, and choose to talk about it. It's not persecution. It's a matter of life. Suck it up and move on. Since when it's ok to expect murder as a price to pay when you disagree with someone?

I think the point of the post Muslima quoted is valid. Why does demonstrating support for freedom of expression require publishing offensive cartoons? I understand sticking it to the terrorists, but is it necessary to offend non-terrorists in the process? I don't remember newspapers publishing photos from Hustler after Larry Flynt was shot. This is like the point I was trying to make yesterday. It is one thing to say that you disagree with what someone says, but defend their right to say it. It is a completely different story when you are the one saying it.

I see that point, but I think in this case it's inapposite. In fact, articles writing about the Hustler free speech case *did* show the content of the cartoon. It was right there in my law school textbook (one of the few memorable things). The situation is that some people killed some cartoonist/journalists because of content that offended their religious beliefs. I think that the content of the supposed motivation for the attacks is part of that story, so it would seem odd to censor it when telling that story.
I would never have published cartoons like this in a fictional world where I had a magazine to publish, *before this attack*, because I do think they're somewhat offensive (though seem to be equal-opportunity offensive to so many groups, not just one or two) and it's not something that seems particularly interesting to me. But if I were a newspaper publisher now, I totally would, because they're part of a very newsworthy story.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Calm down. I didn't suggest you should know. I was informing you because I assumed that you didn't know.

I don't need to be told to calm down. I'm very calm. It's condescending and unwarranted.

I apologize. I should have said, "Don't be so sensitive."

Not sensitive either. If you read my other comments in this thread, you'll see I'm quite rational. I noted an apparent contradiction in your statements. That implies nothing about my emotional state. I do object to men frequently characterizing women who disagree with them as needing to "calm down" or being "too sensitive", though. I don't know if you personally do that regularly or not, but I'll note it when I see it.